Thursday, August 13, 2015

Oh, Obama

Barack is a disaster and, sadly, a serial liar.

Glenn Greenwald's latest opens:As everyone knows, “closing Guantánamo” was a centerpiece of the 2008
Obama campaign. In the Senate and then in the presidential campaign,
Obama repeatedly and eloquently railed against the core, defining evil of Guantánamo: indefinite detention.On the Senate floor, Obama passionately intoned in 2006:
“As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my
family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to
Guantánamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.” During the 2008 campaign, he repeatedly denounced “the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo.”

In the seventh year of Obama’s presidency, Guantánamo notoriously
remains open, leaving one of his central vows unfulfilled. That, in
turn, means that Democratic partisans have to scrounge around for
excuses to justify this failure, to cast blame on someone other than the
president, lest his legacy be besmirched. They long ago settled on the
claim that blame (as always) lies not with Obama but with Congressional
Republicans, who imposed a series of legal restrictions that impeded the
camp’s closing.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, US Gen Ray
Odierno talks about more US troops being sent into Iraq, Haider
al-Abadi's reforms or 'reforms' continue to be greeted with giddy hype
as opposed to actual analysis, and much more.

Gen Ray Odierno is the Army Chief of Staff. He was also the top US
commander in Iraq from September 2008 through September 2010. He
retires as the Army Chief of Staff at the end of the week. He held a
press conference today and Barbara Starr and Jim Sciutto (CNN) report:"If we find in the next several months that we aren't making progress,
we should absolutely consider embedding some soldiers (in Iraq)," Gen.
Raymond Odierno, outgoing Army chief of staff, said in response to a CNN
question about putting troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria at his
final press conference. He called it an "option we should present to the
President."

Odierno, the outgoing Army chief of
staff, backed the current strategy against Islamic State, telling his
last Pentagon news conference that while U.S. troops could defeat the
militants, they could not solve the broader political and economic
problems besetting Iraq and Syria."We
could probably go in there with a certain amount of American force and
... defeat ISIL. The problem is we would be right back where we are
today six months later," he told reporters, using an acronym for Islamic
State."For me it's about
changing the dynamics, the political dynamics, the economic dynamics,
and it has to be done by those in the region," he said.

If you're opposed to war -- or further war -- on Iraq (and I am), it's
really not enough to point out the failure of the bombing campaign.

You need to be underscoring that the political solution Barack claimed
was the only answer for Iraq's crises has not been worked, that there
has been no serious effort by the US government to aid and assist on
that.

You need to decry the use of the State Dept for a militarization
campaign and Secretary of State John Kerry's absurd war posturing.

You need to be demanding that all the US government's efforts stop being
focused on bombings and troops being sent into Iraq and instead that
some actual diplomatic work be done.

I like General Ray Odierno.

He wasn't David Petraeus.

Petraues and his groupies have a long history with this site where they
attempted first to curry favor, then to launch non-stop attacks.

This included Petraues himself -- a man whose devotion to his own ego brought him down.

Had he not been so concerned about shaping the way the world saw him, he
never would have passed classified documents to his mistress who was
also his court biographer.

Petraeus was a nightmare in Iraq for US troops due to his diva like ways.

The press looked the other way but we frequently didn't.

Which led to his attempts -- and the attempts of those serving under him
-- to take control of the way he was portrayed at this site.

It's really not pretty to me to see a grown adult acting like a starlet desperate for copy to advance her career.

But that was Petraeus.

When Odierno took control, the diva theatrics ended.

And that was noticed not just by those paying attention (he immediately
told the press it was just "Ray," not "Raymond") but also by those
serving immediately under him.

The same people who regularly lodged objections to me about Petraeus now
felt respected by Odierno and felt that the general in charge had a
purpose that went beyond shaping his own image for the world.

From near daily e-mail efforts by Petraeus and company, we saw only one
e-mail regarding the portrayal of Odierno here from anyone serving under
him (Odierno has never contacted this site himself).

My dictated e-mail in response to that noted that (a) Odierno was not
being raked over the coals the way Petraeus was because (b) I was not
hearing complaints of diva like behavior, (c) he had raised morale, (c)
he seemed more responsive to the press (whereas Petraeus was 'expansive'
to the press -- about himself) and that (d) Odierno's role and my role
(critic of the illegal war) would always be at odds but if he continued
to focus on the work and not his own ego he would not be receiving the
treatment Petraeus did here.

And Odierno then and to now has done that.

I completely disagree with him on US troops in Iraq.

I understand why he's saying it.

I understand he's sincere on it.

He may eve be right about it.

I don't know.

I'm not stupid enough to pretend I know everything.

Nor am I stupid enough to accuse everyone I disagree with of being
either 'for us or against us' or 'wrong on this like they were wrong on
that.'

Odierno may very well be right that US troops need to be on the ground
in Iraq in large numbers in the near future to turn the tide in Iraq.

I don't agree.

And I think before that's even considered, there need to be demands made on the US government assisting with diplomacy first.

(And, please note, Odierno's call for US troops comes with the acknowledgment that US troops alone will not work.)

It's really sad that we're back to considering sending even more US
troops into Iraq when the diplomatic effort has never been launched by
the White House despite Barack's own words on June 19, 2014.

The violence continues in Iraq as RT notes, "A powerful truck bomb blast has reportedly killed dozens of people and
injured about 200 in Baghdad, reports say. The blast hit the
Shia-dominated Sadr-City district of the Iraqi capital.
" The truck is said to be a "refrigerated truck packed with explosives." AP counts 58 dead with over sixty more people left injured.

He did manage to use these protests to destroy any real opposition to him or anyone else in the post of prime minister.

He initiated a series of changes that did away with quotas which means
no real minority voice in Iraq and certainly no power-sharing agreement.

He did away with the checks and balances on his own position.

He did so with no objection.

Yesterday, UNAMI joined the praise circle as they rushed to announce their pleasure with Iraqi Prime Minister
Haider al-Abadi's proposed reforms or 'reforms.' They did so via a
statement from Deputy Special Envoy Gyorgy Busztin.
Since Jan Kubis is the Special Representative to Iraq for United
Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, some on Arabic social media are
wondering why Busztin made the announcement and where Kubis is? Today
is International Youth Day and, in Iraq, Busztin also delivered a speech
for that occasion.

Along with wondering where Kubis is, Arabic social media is abuzz with
questions over Haider's reforms or 'reforms' -- and with good reason.

No one knows what is taking place but everyone's treating the proposals as a good thing.

The US Congress has been repeatedly told this year that Haider was
giving more power to local areas and how important this was and how it
demonstrated that he was not another Nouri al-Maliki but someone who
wanted to share power. Despite this repeated claim, Al Mada notes the reforms or 'reforms' will give Haider the power to fire the local heads of government.

This is a power the prime minister has not had previously.

In addition, Alsumaria reports that he's now declaring he next plans to alter Iraq's Constitution.

While we cautioned here and noted that the political system was going to
immediately change to one in which the prime minister was basically a
president with sole control of everything, Brookings gushed and issued
p.r. copy.

More and more, it's looking like the protests and the protesters were
used by Haider and others to push through changes in the political
system that do create a more responsive and accountable government.

At the end of July thousands of locals took to the streets of Baghdad
to protest against the lack of state services – and especially the
breakdown in electricity supply, which was making their lives very
difficult in summer temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius. Most of the
organisers of these demonstrations were civil society activists and
other prominent local personalities and their aims were clearly stated.
They wanted the Ministry of Electricity reformed and an end to
corruption there.

The demonstrations took place peacefully
and there were no clashes with police or military on site; these forces
actually distributed water bottles to the demonstrators.

Two days after the first demonstrations,
Qais al-Khazali, head of the League of the Righteous militia group,
appeared on television proclaiming his support of the demonstrators. The
League of the Righteous is one of a dozen or so unofficial armed
groups, made up mostly of local Shiite Muslims, that have played an
essential role in fighting against the extremist Islamic State group in
Iraq. However the League of the Righteous is also known as one of the
more extreme of these groups. And most recently the militia has also
become known for its support of, and patronage from, former Iraqi Prime
Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

On television, al-Khazali announced the
creation of civilian units associated with the Shiite Muslim militias.
“The demonstrators should set firm goals,” al-Khazali said, “because the
problems in Iraq are not only about the Ministry of Electricity. The
problems are part of the whole political system.”

Once again al-Khazali then recommended that Iraq's political system be changed
from a parliamentary one to a presidential one. This would in effect
give al-Maliki, one of the League of the Righteous' sponsors, more power
again; al-Maliki tried to hang onto power after the last elections but
was denied by other Iraqi politicians and he has been seen as trying to
undermine his successor, current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, ever
since.

Some of the civil society activists who had
first organised the popular protests in Baghdad were upset at
al-Khazali's statements. They felt he was trying to hijack the protests
to push his own agenda and as a result, some said they would boycott the
next lot of protests.

Three days before the second demonstration,
which was to take place on August 7, supporters of the League of
Righteous in Baghdad began to prepare to take part in the protests.

“A formal letter from the League’s head
office was sent to all of our offices,” Karim al-Lami, one of the
militia's members based in the Sadr City neighbourhood in Baghdad, told
NIQASH by phone. “The letters emphasised the importance of all members
and employees participating. Additionally, al-Lami explains, the letter
said that militia members shouldn't carry banners or clothing or badges
that indicated they were militia members. “They should only use
anti-government and anti-Parliament slogans and condemn the poor
services,” al-Lami says.

A Shi'ite dominant government led by a Shi'ite prime minister spent the
last days eliminating the roles of minorities in the government -- roles
the Constitution guaranteed.

The president of Iraq, a Kurd, objected and said what was taking place was unconstitutional.

The problem is that there’s no plan to substitute some new guarantor
of national cohesion or at least something less than civil war. With
Sunni Arabs largely out of the political picture in Baghdad, and the
Kurds satisfied for the moment with their de facto autonomy and gradual
expansion, there’s no one to tell the Shiite majority that it better
find some way to bring the country together again.One possibility
is that, at this point, the Shiites just don’t care. The area
controlled by Islamic State doesn’t have significant oil reserves. For
the moment, the militant group isn’t immediately threatening Baghdad.
From the Shiite perspective, the status quo perhaps doesn’t look so bad.
A Shiite statelet in the rump of the former Iraq would include Baghdad
as well as the Persian Gulf refineries and ports.But if Abadi is
thinking that he doesn’t need to give Iraqi Sunnis any incentive to take
part in a unified Iraq, he’s making a big mistake. Islamic State won’t
be satisfied in the long run with a desert enclave. It’ll eventually
make a play for Baghdad, with its significant Sunni population. If
Baghdad’s Sunnis see no future in a Shiite Iraq, they’ll side with
Islamic State when that day comes. That could turn Baghdad into Beirut
circa 1975.

What happens now that Haider has what Nouri always wanted?

The representation is no longer what it was. Minority rights are no longer guaranteed.

Haider is firing people that he really doesn't have the legal right to fire.